Debates of Jan. 28th, 2019

Human Organ Trafficking

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, finally, I am pleased to table a petition in support of Bill S-240, a bill I sponsored that came to us from the Senate. It is currently before the foreign affairs committee. It deals with the scourge of forced organ harvesting. It is important that we pass that bill as soon as possible so that we do not have to start again after the next election.

Trafficking in Human Organs and Tissue

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition regarding Bill S-240, which seeks to make it illegal to traffic in human organs and tissue and would give the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship the authority to make permanent residents or foreign nationals inadmissible to Canada if they have engaged in these activities.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to table a petition today in support of Bill S-240. The bill would make it illegal to go abroad to obtain organs without the consent of the person donating those organs and would also render someone inadmissible to Canada who participates in that illegal trade of organs.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition in support of Bill S-240, which deals with the horrific practice of organ harvesting. It might surprise members of the House to know that it still happens in many places around the world. The bill would finally deal with that scourge by making it illegal for a Canadian to go abroad and receive an organ without the consent of the patient. The bill is before the foreign affairs committee right now.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I, too, would like to present a petition endorsing Bill S-240. It is currently at the foreign affairs committee. I ask that the committee proceed quickly to get the bill passed. Organ harvesting continues to happen around the world, and we need tools to make sure that it no longer happens.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I, too, am pleased to table a petition supporting Bill S-240. As has been said, this would make it a criminal offence for Canadians to go abroad to receive an organ without the consent of the patient. I am sure there is not a member of the House who has not met with the members of this group who have told us the horrendous stories. The bill is currently before the foreign affairs committee, and we would ask that it be studied and hopefully passed before this session of the House concludes this spring.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that they are to talk about the petition itself without going into the committee work and the support for the petition.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Questions Nos. 2035, 2037 to 2041, 2044, 2055, 2065, 2070 to 2072, 2075, 2076, 2083, 2085, 2101, 2102, 2105, 2106, 2117 and 2144.

Question No. 2035

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

With regard to the financial reviews to which the Nunavut Planning Commission was subjected for the financial years ranging from 2012 to 2017: (a) what are the names and titles of the persons who determined that these reviews were necessary; (b) what was the rationale for determining that the audits were necessary; (c) how much did the KPMG review, which covered the years 2012-13 to 2014-15, cost; (d) how much did the Ernst and Young review, which covered the years 2015-16 and 2016-17, cost; and (e) what were the findings and observations of these reviews?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, insofar as Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, CIRNAC, and its special operating agency Indian Oil and Gas Canada, IOGC, are concerned, the response is as follows. With regard to part (a), it was Anne Scotton, chief audit and evaluation executive, CIRNAC.

With regard to part (b), the 2018 financial review by Ernst & Young was a follow-up on the previous review of the Nunavut Planning Commission, NPC, completed in August 2016 by KPMG. The purpose of both reviews was to provide an independent and objective opinion on whether CIRNAC funding had been expended in accordance with the terms and conditions of CIRNAC’s funding agreement with the NPC for the 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 fiscal years, for both core and supplemental funding. Both reviews were conducted to examine compliance with the approved funding agreement and did not examine value for money.

With regard to part (c), for 2015-16, the professional fees were $82,617.84, and the travel fees were $8,844.20. For 2016-17, the professional fees were $18,897.24, and the travel fees were $2,662.56.

With regard to part (d), for 2017-18, the professional fees were $48,055.26, and the travel fees were $12,555.09.

With regard to part (e), a summary of the 2016 financial review of the Nunavut Planning Commission by KPMG and of the 2018 financial review of the Nunavut Planning Commission by Ernst & Young can be found at the following links: for 2016, https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1473944259394/1473944507036; for 2018, https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1536847791557/1536848025495.

Question No. 2037

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

With respect to proposals being considered by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada with regard to Internet services in rural areas since November 4, 2015: (a) has the department considered a proposal that would take broadband spectrum used by rural wireless providers and auction it off for 5G wireless to be used mainly in large urban centres; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, (i) is the department pursuing this proposal, (ii) how many Canadian households would be affected by this change, (iii) has the department undertaken an analysis to determine the impact of a decline in Internet services in rural communities, (iv) does the department have a plan to provide alternative spectrum to existing users, (v) has the department engaged in consultations with rural Canadians and other stakeholders about this proposal; (c) if the answer to (b)(iii) is affirmative, what did the analysis determine; (d) if the answer to (b)(iii) is negative, why was no analysis undertaken; (e) if the answer to (b)(v) is affirmative, (i) what were the dates and locations of each consultation, (ii) who was consulted, (iii) what feedback was provided; and (f) if the answer to (b)(v) is negative, why were no consultations undertaken?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, rural Internet is not at risk. The government is delivering on its commitment to connect more and more rural Canadian communities.

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, ISED, is considering how best to prepare for 5G in a way that lets all Canadians, including those in rural and remote communities, benefit from the next generation of wireless technologies. 5G is expected to add $40 billion to annual GDP by 2026, creating more jobs for Canadians.

As the 3500 MHz band is expected to be one of the first used for 5G services, the government held a public consultation on proposals to facilitate the initial deployment of 5G in Canada. The proposal included options for repurposing some spectrum from existing licensees in both urban and rural areas. All comments received through this consultation process are available online at http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf11401.html.

This process is about maintaining and expanding rural broadband coverage, while establishing conditions where faster and cheaper Internet is more widely available through modern technologies.

Rural Internet is a priority for the government. This is demonstrated by investments totalling $500 million in connectivity for rural communities. The connect to innovate program is bringing new or improved high-speed access to more than 900 rural and remote communities, because all Canadians deserve equal opportunities in the digital economy, regardless of their postal code.

Question No. 2038

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

With regard to Member of Parliament inquiries to the Immigration and Refugee Board on behalf of constituents: (a) what is the average time it takes to respond in full to an inquiry, broken down by year from 2015 to 2018; and (b) how many staff are currently assigned to answer Member of Parliament inquiries?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, insofar as the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, IRB, is concerned, with regard to (a), the IRB aims to respond to inquiries by members of Parliament, or MPs, and their constituency staff within two weeks of receipt. The IRB does not keep track of processing times for each inquiry by calendar year.

As of December 10, 2018, there are no inquiries that remain to be addressed, which is well within the working inventory of 20 requests at any given time.

With regard to (b), one half of a full-time equivalent employee, FTE, is assigned to MP inquiries.

Question No. 2039

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

With regard to Pakistani refugees in Thailand with currently pending private sponsorship applications before Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: (a) how many cases are currently awaiting resettlement to Canada; (b) what is the current wait time for privately sponsored Pakistani refugees in Thailand to be resettled; and (c) when does the government anticipate reducing the wait time to 12 months, as was promised?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, insofar as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, IRCC, is concerned, with regard to (a), as of November 26, 2018, in the inventory there are a total of 160 privately sponsored refugee applications, which excludes cancelled and prospective applications, representing 450 persons of Pakistani origin--principal applicant based on country of citizenship--residing in Thailand.

With regard to (b), processing of privately sponsored refugees is influenced by numerous factors, including the security situation of the area in which the refugee is located, exit clearance processing, and difficulty reaching refugees in remote areas. Wait times are further influenced by individual office capacity and intake management.

Processing times are posted by the migration or visa office and are not broken down by specific nationalities or populations. While IRCC cannot provide specific timing for processing of privately sponsored Pakistani refugees from Thailand, the current processing time for the majority of privately sponsored refugees applying from Thailand is 25 months. The processing time indicates how long it has taken to process most complete applications in the past 12 months.

IRCC is closely monitoring the situation in Thailand regarding the government restrictions on all irregular migrants. IRCC is actively making efforts to expedite the processing of recognized refugees in Canada’s resettlement process who are at imminent risk of refoulement.

With regard to (c), due to the generosity of Canadians, IRCC has seen an increase in demand for the private sponsorship of refugees. The continued high level of interest from private sponsors is a reflection of the success of the program. At the same time, IRCC must manage the intake of applications in order to be able to process them in a timely way based on the immigration levels plan.

IRCC is working to achieve our goal of reducing wait times to an average of 12 months. These changes will ensure the long-term success of the program, which is, and will remain, an integral part of Canada’s immigration program.

The government has more than tripled the number of spaces available in the privately sponsored refugee program over pre-2015 levels, to allow even more Canadians to sponsor refugees to Canada and to reduce wait times.

IRCC is continuing to discuss options for a way forward with sponsors and remains committed to reducing the privately sponsored refugee inventory in a way that is fair for sponsors and refugees alike.

Question No. 2040

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

With respect to the Supplementary Estimates (A) 2018-2019 and the voted appropriations for the Funding for the 2018 G7 Summit in Charlevoix: what are the details of Vote 1a estimated at $10,698,215, broken down by (i) operating expenses for transport, (ii) operating expenses for furniture rental, (iii) operating expenses for equipment, (iv) operating expenses for photography, (v) operating expenses for broadcasting, (vi) operating expenses for communications?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, Canada was proud to hold the G7 presidency from January 1 to December 31, 2018, and used this important opportunity to speak with a strong voice on the international stage on issues that matter to Canadians, as well as to engage G7 counterparts on global challenges. The themes chosen by Canada focused discussions on finding concrete solutions to the challenge we all face: how to create growth that benefits everyone, including the middle class and those working hard to join it. Canada’s presidency resulted in the G7 community making important progress on the goals of ensuring that all citizens benefit from our global economy, and that we leave a healthier and more secure world for our children.

The $10,698,215 in supplementary estimates (A) for 2018-19 was not requested for the specific line items as listed above.

The amount of $10,698,215 is a reprofiling request to transfer unused G7 summit funding from the 2017-18 fiscal year to 2018-19. As such, this amount was not a request for new funding.

Question No. 2041

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA): (a) what is the amount of tax collected and assessed by the CRA because of the deemed disposition of assets that is triggered pursuant to paragraph 128.1(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act as a result of an individual becoming a non-resident of Canada, broken down by taxation years (i) 2015, (ii) 2016, (iii) 2017; and (b) what is the amount of gains and losses reported to the CRA by individuals on prescribed forms T1161 and T1243, broken down by taxation years (i) 2015, (ii) 2016, (iii) 2017?

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, the information provided on forms T1161 and T1243 by taxpayers is not captured on CRA databases for reporting purposes, and cannot be used to produce aggregate data in the manner requested.

Question No. 2044

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

With respect to the Paradise Papers affair, the fight against offshore tax non-compliance and aggressive tax planning: (a) how many taxpayers’ or Canadian companies’ files are currently open at the Canada Revenue Agency; (b) how many taxpayers’ or Canadian companies’ files have been sent to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; (c) how many taxpayers’ or Canadian companies’ files are linked to the marijuana industry; (d) how many employees are assigned to Paradise Papers files; (e) how many audits have been performed since the release of the Paradise Papers; and (f) how much has the Canada Revenue Agency recovered in total?

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the CRA has obtained and is actively reviewing all the information contained in the paradise papers that was released publicly by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, ICIJ, to determine whether an audit had already occurred or whether an audit should be undertaken.

The CRA has identified over 3,000 individuals or corporations with links to the paradise papers. Please note this figure includes those non-residents or taxpayers identified by the CRA prior to the release of information by the ICIJ, who may have been engaged in tax avoidance transactions.

With regard to part (b), to date, no Canadian taxpayer or company has been referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada for criminal prosecution as a result of information received from the paradise paper affair.

With regard to part (c), the CRA does not have this information.

With regard to part (d), more than 25 CRA employees have been assigned specific work relating to the paradise papers, including research, data analytics, risk assessments, audits and coordinating efforts with the agency’s international partners.

With regard to part (e), to date, approximately 100 taxpayers with links to the paradise papers have been identified for audit.

Through its international agreements, the CRA continues to obtain the required source documents from other tax administrations. Audits and criminal investigations such as those linked to the paradise papers are complex and, due to those complexities, can require months or years to complete.

With regard to part (f), as of the date of this question, the CRA has not made any reassessments for audits related to the paradise papers, including those audits that had begun prior to the receipt of the information from the release of information by the ICIJ.

The CRA has reported on collection related to offshore compliance projects in the past, several years after the projects were completed to allow time period for the objection rights of taxpayers. The CRA will do so for the paradise papers. The CRA will report on these figures publicly once they are compiled.

Also, the CRA decided to restrict access to the voluntary disclosure program, if the CRA has already received information on a taxpayer’s, or a related taxpayer’s, potential involvement in tax non compliance--for example, a leak of offshore financial information such as the paradise papers. This choice will extend the time to finalize the CRA’s work, but will deliver stronger consequences to those involved in offshore non-compliance schemes.

Question No. 2055

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

With regard to the $477 million provided to the Canada Infrastructure Bank in the 2018-19 Supplementary Estimates (A): what is the itemized breakdown of how the $477 million is projected to be utilized?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, supplementary estimates (A) listed a transfer from the Department of Finance to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, CIB, in the amount of $477,284,533 for the 2018-19 fiscal year. This amount represents $450,000,000 for capital appropriations and $27,284,533 for operating appropriations for CIB’s 2018-19 approved budgets.

The CIB announced that the investment in the Réseau Express Métropolitain, REM, light rail project in Montréal will come from capital appropriations.

The operating appropriations are allocated to administration activities, such as human resources, premises and equipment, information technology and professional fees and services, including finance, legal, accounting, external audit and consultants and advisers for the REM investment.

As it is legislatively appropriated, the CIB’s appropriations are held in the consolidated revenue fund, and the CIB will request a drawdown from the Department of Finance up to the amount required, as required for its operating and capital needs and based on approved budgets in its corporate plan.

Question No. 2065

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

With regard to funding for legal assistance provided to government employees, broken down by department or agency, and by year since 2016: (a) how many employees received legal assistance funding; (b) how many employees requested or applied for legal assistance funding in relation to a matter arising from their actions as a government employee; (c) of the individuals in (b) how many were (i) approved for funding, (ii) denied funding; and (d) what was the (i) average amount spent per individual who received legal funding, (ii) total expenditure on legal assistance?